pretty cool - dovetails with BSD analysis
YouTube analysis of Nickal elevator
- Thread starter Chickenman Testa
- Start date
Great find!
Here's another from the same guy:
Here's another from the same guy:
Thanks for finding and posting this. Awesome breakdown. Don't think I'll ever get tired of seeing Bo's pin!
The best part is that Martin knew what Bo was doing too, but a combination of greed and overconfidence spelled doom.
Check out Martin's eyes as he's standing on his head. He knows what's next.
Only thing missing was pointing out the OSU fans with great seats......anguish.
Maybe for the next video they can do Cenzo pinning Martinez, with a circle around Perry's head drop.
Both videos were great. Thanks for posting. I can watch Nickal's pin forever. As for Nolf, well, he just abused that poor kid.
After watching all of those different angles, I'm amazed the Tanned One didn't challenge the "no TD" call by the official (the official clearly gives the signal for "no TD" crossing & waving arms side-to-side when Bo re-engages head-lock & drops to his back for the final "bridge-over" posting his left-leg for the bridge & using his right-leg for the elevator). However, it appears Martin did have the TD imho when they first land and Martin intentionally kept his hips low as Bo initially gave up on the elevator, released Martin's head from the head-lock and rolled onto his left hip (once Bo released his head Martin was covering both legs and met the definition of a controlling position and should have been awarded 2 pts for TD imho). As Martin got greedy and Bo re-engaged head-lock and drops to his back to engage elevator bridge-over, I don't think Martin got anywhere close to needed time for exposure points as he was literally on his head so quickly (Bo did come dangerously close to pinning himself though - fortunately the official was busy signaling "no TD" at the time from a standing position and wasn't even down on mat yet where he could have seen it. In a freestyle match, they might have called Bo pinned prior to the elevator - it's really close.).
Anyway, extremely surprised the Tanned Whiner didn't challenge, but I'm not sure what the rule is once the pin was called and match was officially over - IOW, maybe this is why Tanned Tom didn't challenge...he wasn't permitted to as match had ended (maybe rule requires he throw challenge flag while match still in progress - i.e., prior to pin call - not sure. IOW, rules probably specify that you cannot "poste-challenge" a call in a match that has been declared officially over). It's probably the latter as the Tanned Whiner clearly engages the Mat Official and is protesting his calls / non-calls...and appears to be wanting a challenge (i.e., a visit with the Desk Officials and the video). He is shutdown by the Mat Official which I believe probably accrues to the fact that he threw no challenge flag (I think the Tanned Whiner had actually already used all of his allotted challenges prior to the Finals) while match was in progress and once the match is declared over....it's over and cannot be reversed.
Ref gave T2. He was waiving no NF after only 1 swipe.
I didn't see him waving off the NF and he definitely swiped twice.
He never swiped twice that I could see...he definitely jumps to his feet as Bo re-engages head-lock and starts elevating Martin and is waving off points (I thought it was the T2, but El-Jefe says T2 was awarded on scoreboard, so it has to exposure points he is waiving for not enough exposure time - there really is nothing else the Mat Official could be referring to imho if he awarded the T2).
There was a David Taylor ankle pick study that followed the Bo and Nolf videos. Soooo good
That was very cool thanks for posting
what a great moment, I would love to see the Cael reaction in breakdown...lol....usually so composed and that bo moment gave us one of the best Cael reactions ever!!!
Here is a question for Roar.
If OSU had a challenge left and after the fall was called they had thrown their brick and challenged the back points call. Then upon review it was decided there should indeed have been 2 back points awarded. The outcome would have been Martin 4, Bo 0 and referee start with Martin on top and clock reset to the point where Bo rolled through. Correct?
If correct, this should be a huge red flag for a correction on the wrestle through.
If OSU had a challenge left and after the fall was called they had thrown their brick and challenged the back points call. Then upon review it was decided there should indeed have been 2 back points awarded. The outcome would have been Martin 4, Bo 0 and referee start with Martin on top and clock reset to the point where Bo rolled through. Correct?
If correct, this should be a huge red flag for a correction on the wrestle through.
Can they challenge something even after the match has been officially declared over (i.e,, after a pin call and the match is officially over)??? This would run contrary to International Rules - Nate Carr was very likely screwed out of a Gold Medal in 1988 because the officials claimed a scoring error could not be changed once the match was officially declared over.
The replay rule needs to be adjusted to account for continuous action. It makes absolutely no sense to take points off the board that happened in one continuous flow of activity regardless of the initial scoring. If somebody's hand touches the mat for a split second and they then turn and face the other wrestler, a no TD call that is overturned should result in a 2-1 score, not a 2-0 score.
Eventually there will be a pin that is taken off the board due to a change in scoring from previous action and all heck is gonna break loose.
Eventually there will be a pin that is taken off the board due to a change in scoring from previous action and all heck is gonna break loose.
I agree. There needs to be some way to account for action that happens after the point where a challenge is made. Your example is a perfect one. Would be even worse if another TD was scored by EITHER wrestler before the challenge was made.
The match is officially over when the wrestlers leave the wrestling area. The fall call is simply a scoring call.
I could be full of baloney, but that is my understanding.
If everybody thinks back to last year's Big10 tournament when Bo was wrestling Dudley there was a challenge to whether Dudley had taken Bo down (or maybe scored a reversal) right before Bo tossed Dudley for 6. If they give Dudley the score, even though Bo hitting the toss was a continuous flow of wrestling action thhings could have changed dramatically.
Pretty much correct. Here is the language from the rules. If a challenge brick is thrown before the ref raises one wrestler's hand and a call is overturned then the pin never happened.
Section 9. Declaring the Winner
During the postmatch period, the wrestlers shall return to and remain in the
center of the mat while the referee checks with the scorer's table. Upon the
referee's return to the center of the mat, the competitors will give a traditional
handshake in a sportsmanlike manner and the referee will declare the winner in accordance with the Referee Signals Chart. (See Illustrations.)
In the call in question, Bo's hand had already been raised when Ryan engaged the mat official in the tO$U corner of the mat....so the match was indeed over and unchangeable when Ryan was arguing with official about his calls after the match, no?
The bolded part made me laugh out loud. Didn’t realize this req’mt is enshrined in the rule book. Could this be the most widely violated rule in the book?
Last edited:
You got the rule right, though playing "what-if's" can take one into the great unknown. The ref was swiping, and called the takedown, but didn't award back-points to Myles, during a time when the action was furious. In this case, I believe it would be a scoring error only, at worst, which is reviewable, but Bo made that point moot, as the rulebook states, a review can be conducted when, "the outcome of a review may have an impact on the result of the match." I understand what you are asking, though I do not believe it meets the letter of, or intent of the rule that requires points awarded, and a return to that point of the action. I also believe the rule could be written a bit more clearly...it's pretty good, though the committee could use this bout, and a few others to tweak it.
Sorry, I was in Pittsburgh this weekend, and had limited internet...or I would have responded sooner.
Roar, in Pittsburgh, limited Internet - you must be in one of our many road tunnels.
My favorite one is the North Shore Connector at cost over a half billion dollars. The under the Allegheny river tunnel saved walking the bridge to the stadiums. You could have given $10 to every pedestrian in lieu of the subway and never ran out of money.
As to your limited internet, for next year's NCAA, I'll point out the many telegraph offices that dot the city. The good old days!
My favorite one is the North Shore Connector at cost over a half billion dollars. The under the Allegheny river tunnel saved walking the bridge to the stadiums. You could have given $10 to every pedestrian in lieu of the subway and never ran out of money.
As to your limited internet, for next year's NCAA, I'll point out the many telegraph offices that dot the city. The good old days!
When we go to my mother-in-law's if I access the internet via my phone while I am suppose to be pretending to be engaged in visiting I find myself sent to the doghouse. So for the benefit of my self-interest I self limit my internet access.Roar, in Pittsburgh, limited Internet - you must be in one of our many road tunnels.
My favorite one is the North Shore Connector at cost over a half billion dollars. The under the Allegheny river tunnel saved walking the bridge to the stadiums. You could have given $10 to every pedestrian in lieu of the subway and never ran out of money.
As to your limited internet, for next year's NCAA, I'll point out the many telegraph offices that dot the city. The good old days!
Just saying there can be more than a single and obvious limitation.
Last edited:
Ha! It was more a time thing than an access thing. Habit 3, for those that know the Covey Habits.
This is the new Elevator Chain that Tom Ryan will present to Bo next year:
This is the new Elevator Chain that Tom Ryan will present to Bo next year:
Wait till Otis sees this, he loves this.
I asked a college ref I know about this scenario. He confirmed what I thought was the case. Per the college ref, if tOSU had a challenge remaining, and had thrown the brick, and that the review determined that NF points should have been awarded, then anything that happened after the NF would have been nullified, and the match would have been restarted with Martin on top with 2 NF awarded.
Early this past season, at the Lehigh dual, PSU threw the brick after a PSUer got pinned. (I can't remember if it was 125 or 133.) PSU's challenge was that the Lehigh wrestler had pulled the PSU wrestler's headgear before the Lehigh wrestler got the TD which ultimately resulted in their pinning the PSU wrestler. PSU lost that challenge, but if they had won it the match would have restarted before the Lehigh wrestler's TD, with the PSU wrestler being awarded the 1 point for the headgear grab.
that is what I was thinking.. however this one needs tweaked as it would have been a shame for that to have happened... Also, I don't think either wrestler had an idea if 2 was given or not so it didn't impact the continuous action. Perhaps that should be the tweak... "restart the action where continuous action was halted"... yea, yea, now we have to define continuous action
IMHO, this whole point would be moot. The ref did swipe and if challenged I'm guessing the ref would say he did award 2 backpoints, he just didn't have time to actually signal that before the match was over. For all we know those backpoints might have actually been recorded on the bout sheet.
Yeah, I understand the rule and have seen it work against justice at times, but only ever in the context of a call as to whether a takedown had occurred or not, in which case rewinding the clock makes sense. But if a brick had been thrown to challenge the non-award of two back points immediately before that wrestler got pinned, the ref can just say, well, sure, I'll give you those back points that I was just about to get to--enjoy.
Add in the actual context here, where such a call could have changed the outcome of a national championship and team title... every ref would strive to avoid becoming the story instead of letting the wrestlers decide it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Football Former Penn State WR KeAndre Lambert-Smith commits to Auburn- Latest: Sportfan2017
-